Karnataka High Court
Sri Vinay S Nagol vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 24 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:8775
WP No. 4060 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.4060 OF 2025 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI VINAY S NAGOL
S/O. SHANTHAVEERAPPA N. H.,
AGED 20 YEARS,
R/AT: ANJANADRI NILAYA,
KENCHAVEERAPPA LAYOUT, HOLALKERE,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 526
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAKASH M H.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 041.
BY ITS CHANCELLOR.
Digitally signed by 2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION,
MAHALAKSHMI B M (PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA), POCKET-14,
Location: HIGH SECTOR-8, DWARKAR PHASE-1,
COURT OF NEW DELHI-110 077.
KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 ND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION IN THE
NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO SEND
THE ANSWER SCRIPTS OF THE PETITIONER TO THE THIRD
VALUATOR AND TO ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS BY CONSIDERING THE
BEST MARKS AT THE EARLIEST VIDE ANNX-B, C AND D AND ETC.,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:8775
WP No. 4060 of 2025
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs:
"a) Issue a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondent university to send the answer scripts of the petitioner to the third valuator and to announce the results by considering the best marks at the earliest vide Annexure- B,C & D.
b) Issue a writ in the nature of direction to the respondent university to provide the key answers, key words, key phrases terms to the examiners for evaluating all the question papers send by it for the MBBS examination by the respondent university."
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner counsel that there is substantial variation between the marks awarded by the two evaluators, which necessitates a third valuation. It is submitted that the scheme of valuation has -3- NC: 2025:KHC:8775 WP No. 4060 of 2025 been done as per the notification/ordinance dated 05.09.2022 and as per the regulations, the best of two marks awarded by two valuators will be reckoned for the announcement of results and there is no scope for revaluation by deviation method. It is submitted that due to erratic valuation and despite an error in operating on the side of the respondents, there is no remedy available to the students i.e., the petitioner herein, to apply for a third valuation. It is submitted that the gross variation among two valuations shows that if a third valuation were made, the petitioner would get justice and would proceed further to secure a seat in the next year.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the RGUHS submits that the Ordinance/notification dated 05.09.2022 governing valuation of all undergraduate Health Sciences course theory and answer scripts was challenged before this Court and the validity of the ordinance has been upheld and the petitioner is not entitled for questioning the validity of the Ordinance which -4- NC: 2025:KHC:8775 WP No. 4060 of 2025 fell for challenge on various grounds in the case of V. Vamshi Krishna Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and another1 (V. Vamshi Krishna) and also in the case of Mr. Aneesh S.M. and others Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and others2 (Aneesh).
5. The Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in V.Vamshi Krishna's case observed at paragraph Nos.26, 27 and 29 as under:
"26. Section 35(1) provides that Syndicate may from time to time make ordinances, amend or repeal. Section 35(3)(b) states that in making ordinance the Syndicate shall consult the academic council in relating to conduct or standard of examination or the Syndicate shall consult the academic council in relating to conduct or standard of examination or conditions of residence of students. In the instant case, where the university decided to introduce the digital valuation system for evaluating answer scripts of all examinations in the Health Science subjects from May 2016 onwards and promulgated ordinance dated 29.03.2019. In 1 WP No.11688/2023 D.D. 13.10.2023 2 W.P. No.13375/2023 D.D. 18.04.2024 -5- NC: 2025:KHC:8775 WP No. 4060 of 2025 respect of under graduate examination, several notification governing the system of evaluation were issued by the University from time to time. The process of evaluation contending the previous notification were subject matter of several writ petitions. This Court ordered that as and when an ordinance is re-promulgated, it has to be discussed in the Committee of Academic Council and Syndicate. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the university has placed the matter for deliberation before the Committee of Academic Council Meetings held on 25.08.2022, 26.08.2022 and 29.08.2022. The Committee of Academic Council recommended to promulgate impugned ordinance in supersession of all the previous ordinances/notifications pertaining to the answer script evaluation. The same was placed before Minutes of 172nd Syndicate meeting held on 02.09.2022 and 05.09.2022. The Syndicate also was pleased to promulgate the impugned ordinance. The impugned ordinance came into force with effect from the examination conducted on or after 01.09.2022. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of RGUHS and another Vs. Mr.Samarth SS and others in W.A.No.1208/2022 disposed of on 11.01.2023 held that the impugned ordinance is in accordance with Section 35 of RGUHS Act, 1994.-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:8775 WP No. 4060 of 2025
27. The legislature and the delegate are the sole repositories of the power to decide the policies which should be pursued in relation to the matters covered by the Act and there is no scope for interference by the Court unless the particular provision impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal lacunas in its merits, in the sense if it's being wholly beyond the scope of the regulation making power or its being inconsistent with any of the provisions of the parent enactment or in violation of any of the limitations imposed by the constitution. None of these vitiating factors are shown to exist in the present case. The Section 35 of the RGUHS Act, 1994 makes it clear that a duty is cast on the Syndicate to formulate its ordinances, amend or repeal in consultation with the Academic Council in matter relating to conduct or standard of examination or condition of residence of students. It s perfectly within the competence of syndicate in consultation with the academic council, rather, it was its plain duty to apply its mind and decide as a matter of policy relating to matters of examination. All these are undoubtfully matters which have an intimate nexus with the objects and purposes of the enactment and are, therefore within the ambit of the power to make ordinance amend or repeal contended by section 35 of the Act, unless it can be -7- NC: 2025:KHC:8775 WP No. 4060 of 2025 said that ordinance is manifestly unjust, capricious, inequitable or partial. The said ordinance was promulgated by the prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by the professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day today working institutions and the department controlling them. It would be wholly wrong on the part of the Court to make a pandentic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and gross route problems involved in the working of system and unmindful of consequences which would eminate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one way to be propounded . It is equally important, Court should avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or byelaw which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. The procedure to be adopted for evaluating the answer scripts is a matter of academic policy of the university.
29. The petitioners are the students who do not have any right to dictate the university with regard to the process of revaluation as the same is the policy decision to be made by the university and the same cannot be done on the whims and fancies of the students. The university is conferred -8- NC: 2025:KHC:8775 WP No. 4060 of 2025 by statute in rule making power. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State board of Secondary and Higher Secondary education and another Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others reported in (1984) 4 SCC 27 held that, it is the university, the state/central authority which prescribes the methodology and the process of evaluation it should be left to the academicians to do their jobs and the Court should reframe in treading to their territory of policy decision. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Parents association, RGUHS Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka in W.P.Nos.2905 and 453/2000 disposed on 19.12.2003 observed that the procedure to be adopted for evaluating the answer scripts is a matter of academic policy of the university and that when the ordinance is made by the Syndicate of the university consisting of academicians and experts in the field of education, it is impermissible for the Court to interfere with such a policy in the arbitrariness. "
6. In the case of Aneesh, this Court observed at paragraph Nos.29 and 30 as under:
"29. In W.P.no.11688/2023 (V.Vamshi Krishna v. RGUHS and Anr., disposed of on -9- NC: 2025:KHC:8775 WP No. 4060 of 2025 13.10.2023), learned Single Judge of this Court examined specific challenge against CAP-2022, by students who had appeared in May, 2022 MBBS Examinations and prayer for providing challenge valuation in case of difference of marks awarded between two evaluators was more than 15%. Invalidity of CAP-2022 on ground of non-effective consultation was also considered, but writ petitions were dismissed by upholding validity of CAP-2022.
30. Hence, decision in V.Vamshi Krishna's case (supra) would squarely cover questions (ii) and (iii). Indeed, earlier decision in Dr.Prashant Mannur's case (supra) was not brought to notice of Court in Vamshi Krishna's case (supra), but validity of CAP-2022 was upheld on ground that scope of judicial review in academic matters would be extremely limited, referring to series of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Division Bench of this Court in New Krishna Bhavan, Malleswaram, Bangalore-3 v. Commercial Tax Officer, No. IV Circle (Addl.) Bangalore, reported in 1959 SCC OnLine Kar. 130, held in case of conflict between decisions of equal bench strength, later decision would prevail. In view of above discussion, questions (i) to (iii) are answered in negative. Consequently, writ petitions are dismissed."
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8775 WP No. 4060 of 2025
7. The decisions in the cases of V.Vamshi Krishna and Aneesh squarely apply to the present facts. The validity of the ordinance/notification dated 05.09.2022 has been upheld by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. The petitioner has not called in question the validity of the ordinance passed by the RGUHS dated 05.09.2022 and hence, this Court refrains from referring to the validity of the Ordinance dated 05.09.2022 more so because it has been upheld and affirmed on two occasions by this Court in V. Vamshi Krishna's case and in Aneesh's case and the said aspect about the validity of the Ordinance has attained finality.
8. The RGUHS has introduced a digital valuation system for evaluating answer scripts of all examinations in health science subjects from the year May 2015 onwards and formulated an ordinance on 29.03.2019. The procedure of the evaluation and previous notification was subject to the challenge by way of several writ petitions before this Court, the 2020 Ordinance, and the 2021
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8775 WP No. 4060 of 2025 Ordinance, which was subject to scrutiny of this Court, and quashed the ordinance holding arbitrary valuation and finding fault in the ordinance of each and every MBBS examinations. Pursuant to which, the committee of the academic council, senate and syndicate decided to promulgate an ordinance/ notification in super session of all the previous ordinances / notification pertaining to answer scripts evaluation and the present ordinance dated 05.09.2022 has been prescribed for all undergraduate health science courses theory answer scripts. The procedure for evaluation prescribed in definitions 3, 4 and 5 is as follows:
"3. DEFINITIONS:
General valuation-Means evaluation conducted by the first eligible examiner of the respective faculties through the digital valuation system.
Re-evaluation- Means evaluation conducted by the first eligible examiner of the respective faculties through the digital valuation system.
4. PROCEDURE FOR VALUATION:
All answer scripts of all undergraduate health sciences courses of RGUHS be subjected to general
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8775 WP No. 4060 of 2025 evaluation by the first eligible examiner and re- evaluation by the second eligible examiner of the respective faculties through the digital valuation system before the computation of results.
5. PROCEDURE FOR COMPUTATION OF RESULTS:
The highest of the total marks awarded by either of the two evaluators i.e., best total marks awarded by any of the two evaluators for the paper shall be considered for computation of the results. If any decimals occurring during individual evaluator total marks awarded by the examiner shall be rounded off to the next higher value for the purpose of computation of results.
The marks awarded and the results so declared shall be final and under any circumstances further valuation shall not be entertained and should be made applicable prospectively."
9. The procedure prescribed under the Ordinance and its validity has been upheld, the question of directing relating to the revaluation by a method contrary to that provided under the Ordinance would not arise.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8775 WP No. 4060 of 2025
10. Neither can this Court supplement what was within the wisdom of the academic bodies by way of a direction that runs contrary to the regulations. The prayer sought in the writ petition in the nature of mandamus to the respondent to send the answer scripts to the third valuator and to announce the results would not arise in the present facts, as the request made in the petition, the Court cannot direct or embark upon the inspection of an answer sheet and consider the request for revaluation, which is within the domain of the experts. The prayer No.b also sought in the nature of direction to respondent No.2 to provide key answers, key words, and key phrases terms to the examiners for evaluating all the questions papers sent by it for MBBS examinations, which had already been done and the same prayer would not survive for consideration. Under identical circumstances, this Court in the case of Abin Thomas Sebastian Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and others3 (Abin 3 WP 8912/2024 D.D. 19.09.2024
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8775 WP No. 4060 of 2025 Thomas Sebastian) has observed at paragraph No.52 as under:
"52. In light of the procedure prescribed under the ordinance and its validity having been upheld, the question of considering passing of directions relating to revaluation by a method contrary to that provided under the ordinance does not arise. The court cannot supplant the wisdom of the academic bodies by way of directions that run contrary to the regulations."
11. The decisions referred above aptly apply to the present facts, the petitioner has not made out any grounds for interference by this Court and accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77